From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1C4920C49B for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2025 16:59:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739379553; cv=none; b=elIy+p1v8vnBN0V1bndxIXWVCa3f7rUdjbxOhaiK/cDOnh5ZlJA/gaUXVSQWNK2CptgciK7uXgS3d9KsOnVTNDCCCOLxsIrkhBkQcSC6fCEjnq/1SOTlayVtjQ7OjdbU6sC6NPMTpJfaekLjTo4nBzdbzx0wtUzV5SLA8Jnj+TY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739379553; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YjUIn4lJH9lxQ8Q4UTyt60Z0ILgIfgW9XxjAH/hQKDc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ggyCHegwzj+MGm2UmoplxOVE8Rjs8Ff27D2Pk30XKLu3k4f5a7DPHQErJkOREn+UN18uVqM4zZNS9Zhq4xZfTXuo+w0D+CaZjGYDMt+iN85LlMUs0UhAVadgI5G0CXTptoA1meiySO0SQKMO/sb84tzC7BAZIRsuO1cui4rlQKg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=t274u3TB; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=bmiY8Scv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="t274u3TB"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="bmiY8Scv" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:59:08 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1739379549; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9W2ZftG6e/0aVD6yOjnyHLbtkoAEjsTBWGZ2zWsfjdk=; b=t274u3TB6jKJqaXtnDedidIZD/DcwXdagY2m/N1pbmL8oho/c87UFCeL0UNU1RXwP8iV2N wgpe7XkqWXJQwsMc+x3KlDa5Rcf2Hxuw/S/dPFWBWX1A56x9+95+j0ospTPCidTk+Rglz9 SeESlSnDBeJTvoTNkLJOAvNgcwfdMTZdL0+6xk6OpfNEj6AUtf1WkXuVpcfU0okUj+Ga07 CGXPcmTcPes+mv27UNsii++RQv3bJCxFvGymRUU3nkIFibhmOb9KAc2ny2Cy8RE9Q0a4FQ QvbIudsEi5quEvaPuxksYzLRYv5wNIIPbeLbhxZrkB9C69NeL6D5b0416sDOrg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1739379549; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9W2ZftG6e/0aVD6yOjnyHLbtkoAEjsTBWGZ2zWsfjdk=; b=bmiY8Scvm07JG2jzYsc0u4DRMHr8qUvURIAbuZ0jjHrD2AJAjP1Uy1ZmUtQsgC1+4xDulI 9gbi6vj3HH5OR+Bw== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Guenter Roeck , Clark Williams , linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: possible circular locking dependency backtrace seen when enabling PREEMPT_RT Message-ID: <20250212165908.DoNnHJ5v@linutronix.de> References: <20250212114531.4e95ffe7@gandalf.local.home> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250212114531.4e95ffe7@gandalf.local.home> On 2025-02-12 11:45:31 [-0500], Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Shouldn't the spin_lock_irq*() variants for PREEMPT_RT also disable local_bh? Better not. The consequences sure wouldn't be funny. Sebastian